This Man One Ups Tesla By Inventing An Electric Car That Never Needs Charging

[mfcorey1]

The concept of the electric car has been around for a very long time, and as with any other world revolutionizing technology, it’s taken a while to actually bring them out and have them on the market. It would be great to just throw out all of the red tape that delays the process, but our world doesn’t work that way, in fact, it’s quite the opposite and in an industry dominated by oil, it’s hard to make your presence felt.
advertisement - learn more

Giant corporations have monopolies on technologies like this, and they themselves are going to want to control the clean energy market, just as they have been with regards to oil. Clean energy technology has huge implications, not just from an environmental standpoint, but a geopolitical one as well. Perhaps that’s why it’s taken so long for many of them to see the light of day, and many of them never do. It’s great to see companies like Tesla out there, but by now, it should be illegal for any manufacturer to make a car that runs on oil rather than electricity or some other form of green technology.

Take for example, the “Invention Secrecy Act,” it was written up in 1951. Under this act, patent applications on new inventions can be subject to secrecy orders. These orders can restrict their publication if government agencies believe that their disclosure would be harmful to national security.(source)(source)

Could this be the reason why so many revolutionary inventions never saw the light of day?

As reported by the Federation of American Scientists, there were over 5000 inventions that were under secrecy orders at the end of Fiscal Year 2014, which marked the highest number of secrecy orders in effect since 1994. Steven Aftergood from the Federation of American Scientists reports:

“The 1971 list indicates that patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction if the photovoltaics were more than 20% efficient. Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction if they offered conversion efficiencies in “excess of 70-80%.” (source)

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/04/25/this-man-one-ups-tesla-by-inventing-an-electric-car-that-never-needs-charging/

[Vinca]

1. The very last thing I am is a scientist, but I've never understood why a car can't generate its own

electricity. A windmill goes round and round and creates power, why not wheels?? Why can't operating the car create its own electricity?

[dlk]

2. Why Be Logical?

Keep in mind, we live in more of a corporate autocracy than most people realize.

[Locrian]

4. conservation of energy

You cant move a car - generate heat, friction, mass and acceleration, wind resistance - and never spend any energy to do it.

You *can* recover some with things like regenerative braking (sucking the energy back when you brake) but you still lose energy in friction (heat) etc.

conservation of energy = No free lunch.

[Nitram]

16. Thanks for pointing that out, Locrian. I'm a little surprise how few people seem aware of Newton's

3 Laws of Motion, and the basic principles of thermodynamics. Aren't they taught in high school science classes anymore?

[Xipe Totec]

5. The three laws of thermodynamics

1.- You can't get something from nothing

2.- The best you can do is break even

3.- You will never break even.

[genxlib]

6. My sarcasm meter might be broken

Are you for real?

It's right there in the name...wind. A windmill has an outside source of energy. All it is doing is capturing it.

[Vinca]

23. Well, yuck, yuck, yuck, yuck, yuck.

I just found a patent for what I was thinking about. Guess I'm not the only nutter in the world.

https://patents.google.com/patent/US6291901

[genxlib]

26. Irregardless

An invention like that is still only capturing energy generated by something else.

It can make a system more efficient by recapturing some energy that would have otherwise been lost. But it is still just capturing and not creating energy.

[Codeine]

34. That system just captures a bit of lost energy.

It can feed that back into the drive system to extend battery life or be used used to power auxiliary equipment on-board, but an external power source (charged battery, IC engine, etc.) would still be required. Incidentally, this limitation is laid out in the patent description. This patent is for a system similar to regenerative braking, but using the deformation of a loaded, rotating tire as the recapture mechanism. It’s an interesting idea, though I question the wisdom of inserting complex electrical systems into a disposable item subject to heavy mechanical wear like a tire.

This system certainly doesn’t have the potential to fully power the drivetrain as the drivetrain powers it; that’s where you get into the realm of violating the laws of thermodynamics. All systems require an external energy source to do work. We can strive to minimize the waste and recapture energy where we can, but we still have to constantly pour power, stored potential energy, into the system to make it operate.

We were all probably snarkier to you than we should have been on this issue, but it is pretty elementary (well, middle school) stuff if I’m being honest. Here’s a simple explanation of why perpetual motion machines (which is what your proposed car would be) can’t exist;

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/55944-perpetual-motion-machines.html

[VMA131Marine]

58. Patents are not what you think they are

They are a way to protect ideas, but you don't have to prove the idea works to get a patent.

[d_r]

7. Thats what a hybrid does

Charges the battery while you beak. Electric cars do it also. You can't generate more power than you use, but you can capture some of the energy that is wasted.

[3Hotdogs]

8. The term is "resistance." For instance, it takes energy for electricity to move through a wire.

If an amount of energy is going from a battery or alternator to power a device, a smaller amount actually reaches the device it is powering. The difference is due to resistance. A car that tried to power itself would continue to lose that energy as it is driven. It would eventually need an outside input of new energy.

[Codeine]

12. 8th grade science, dude.

Just. . . damn.

[Nitram]

14. Um, Vinca, it's the wind that turns WINDmills. Are you suggesting we put sails on cars?

[Canoe52]

31. I like that idea! But then to move a 4,000 car up a hill would take a pretty big sail.

[Codeine]

35. Hmmmm. . .

Maybe if we blow really hard?

[Nitram]

40. Not to mention, you couldn't go into the wind.

Sorry, boss, I can't come in today. I've got a headwind.

[hunter]

42. Believe it or not, it is possible....

This is a wind powered vehicle that goes directly into the wind at more than 2X wind speed. This video was taken on 16 June 2012 at the New Jerusalem airstrip in Northern California. The vehicle was originally designed and built to go directly downwind faster than the wind.

It's not intuitive, nevertheless, a vehicle is able to extract energy from the wind as it's heading directly into the wind.

No laws of thermodynamics are violated.

Obviously this vehicle is a bit unwieldy for highway use.

[Nitram]

44. Very interesting.

We were talking about sails, though. Which would be a great deal more unwieldy.

[hunter]

46. If it can be done with a turbine it can probably be done with sails too.

Watch the boom!

[Nitram]

65. I remember a land lubber leaning against the boom, drink in hand.

We told him that wasn't good idea, but he didn't listen, the wind changed direction and the boom tossed him into the ocean. The only injury was the black eye he gave someone as he swung by with his feet out.

[Ilsa]

54. Sailboats don't head directly into the wind, but tack at angles,

trying to get pointed as "high" towards the wind direction as possible. The higher they get, the closer they come to stalling.

[hunter]

55. My wife is a wind surfer.

I consider myself successful not to drown.

[Ilsa]

59. I used to sail.

Wench ape, occasionally took the tiller. Made friends with people with different sized boats, usually 22-30 footers. Mostly saltwater sailing.

[hunter]

61. A bird-like flapping and tacking sail boat would probably induce severe sea sickness in most people.

But the math works.

[Nitram]

63. I found that people tended to get sea-sick with the wind behind us and the waves swinging us

sluggishly back and forth.

[Nitram]

62. I really learned to sail during my 20 years in Japan. Took my 13-foot dingy out onto Tokyo Bay.

And crewed on a friend's 44-foot ketch going island-hopping among Japanese islands in the Pacific Ocean.

[Ilsa]

66. That's cool. I've been on a big ketch like that.

It was too much boat, and I'm not sure the skipper knew who was doing what. I was relieved to get back on land.

[Nitram]

67. It was the perfect boat out on the Pacific Ocean in big rollers.

[Nitram]

64. That's right. The best way to put on the brakes is to head directly into the wind and let out the

main sail.

[Vinca]

22. Wow - I'm never going to respond to a post like this again. You guys are nasty.

Pardon me for wanting to learn something.

[demmiblue]

27. Yeah, people can be nasty.

[Uncle Joe]

43. Don't sweat the snarky ones Vinca, they forget that everything is relative

Peace to you

[hunter]

50. Yes that's true, but only if you can do the math.

Here's the thing:

Einstein was not a brilliant mathematician. He was no Carl Friedrich Gauss and it showed whenever he was confronted with quantum physics madness.

God does not play dice?

God still has a few tricks up his sleeve.

Yet Einstein took the math he knew further than anyone had ever taken it before.

[Uncle Joe]

57. Einstein was no Isaac Newton either because Newton WAS a brilliant mathematician,

but Albert's imagination and advancements in human knowledge gave him an advantage.

Sir Isaac Newton PRS (/ˈnjuːtən/;[6] 25 December 1642 – 20 March 1726/27[1]) was an English mathematician, astronomer, theologian, author and physicist (described in his own day as a "natural philosopher" who is widely recognised as one of the most influential scientists of all time, and a key figure in the scientific revolution. His book Philosophie Naturalis Principia Mathematica ("Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", first published in 1687, laid the foundations of classical mechanics. Newton also made pathbreaking contributions to optics, and he shares credit with Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz for developing the infinitesimal calculus.

(snip)

In 1916, Einstein predicted gravitational waves,[169][170] ripples in the curvature of spacetime which propagate as waves, traveling outward from the source, transporting energy as gravitational radiation. The existence of gravitational waves is possible under general relativity due to its Lorentz invariance which brings the concept of a finite speed of propagation of the physical interactions of gravity with it. By contrast, gravitational waves cannot exist in the Newtonian theory of gravitation, which postulates that the physical interactions of gravity propagate at infinite speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

In 1916, Einstein predicted gravitational waves,[169][170] ripples in the curvature of spacetime which propagate as waves, traveling outward from the source, transporting energy as gravitational radiation. The existence of gravitational waves is possible under general relativity due to its Lorentz invariance which brings the concept of a finite speed of propagation of the physical interactions of gravity with it. By contrast, gravitational waves cannot exist in the Newtonian theory of gravitation, which postulates that the physical interactions of gravity propagate at infinite speed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein

We're still learning, this was true in Newton's Day, Einstein's time and even today.

[Turbineguy]

53. Here you go:

“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?”

― George Bernard Shaw

Keep asking. Keep learning.

[cemaphonic]

25. That's what an alternator does.

The electrical systems in your car are powered by electricity generated by the engine's revolution. But you need some sort of external power supply (combustion in an IC engine, battery in an electric motor) to operate the engine, otherwise you're in perpetual motion machine territory.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

28. LOL... not possible, would violate the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[alfredo]

29. Regerative braking.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy_recovery_system.

[Demsrule86]

30. GM volts act as a generator and charge batteries...it is not a gas engine.

[genxlib]

3. WOO-hoo!

With the emphasis on the woo.

There is one electric car that doesn't need charging despite going very fast all the time. It happens to be a Tesla because SpaceX put it into orbit. All the others need a source of power.

[KelleyKramer]

37. Ha ha! I forgot about that, is it still up there?

I would give Musk an A+ for promotion for that stunt

[robbob]

38. It's going to be

“Up there” for a long, long time...

[DetlefK]

9. This is bullshit on so, so many levels.

1. If you want to protect your invention, it's not enough to file a patent in the US. You also have to file patents with the EU, with China... If you file a patent only in one country, you are protected only in one country. That's why a “Invention Secrecy Act” in the US cannot possibly keep patents from being filed publicly elsewhere.

2. Even if the US were to somehow censor patents on photovoltaics with an efficiency of more than 20%, that means nothing for scientific publications. If your article meets the quality-standard, you can publish your discovery in a scientific journal and THEY aren't being censored.

3. His manner of producing energy sounds awfully like the Cold Fusion two guys in Bologna invented. They shoot radiation at a metal-hydrite. They also refuse to let anybody take a look at it.

4. Violating conservation of energy is a big fucking deal that is only possible under very special circumstances either in quantumelectrodynamics or in weird space-time environments. His invention doesn't sound like one of those physically complicated situations.

5. I just remembered that there was a guy from Zimbabwe, a humble math-teacher, who published an absolutely brillant mathematical proof. He was hailed as a genius! The only problem was that then people found out that "his" proof had been published decades earlier by somebody else.

6. The article tries to make it sound as if the US government invited this guy to come over and work for them. But what if he simply emigrated to the US as a simple citizen???

7. The water-powered car is an urban myth. Anybody with College-level chemistry knowledge will be able to explain why.

8. The Italians who invented Cold Fusion also presumably had a US Colonel at a demonstration where they tried to lure in investors. (Or it was just someone in a costume, to impress the investors.)



The next article explains how Plato invented Quantummechanics in 400 BC. Sounds interesting.

[jberryhill]

10. Utter bullshit

[struggle4progress]

11. I'll get you a deal on a car like this, that's been moving 30 km/sec without gas for years

[Orsino]

13. Dude is either claiming to have invented a perpetual-motion machine...

...or that his car will run on existing radio waves. That no story can even decide which tells us definitively that this is bullshit.

[SidDithers]

15. Collective Evolution. FFS...

for all your anti-vaccine, anti-fluoridation, 9/11 Truth, Boston bombing truth, medical woo, conspiracy theory needs.

Sources matter.

Sid

[FSogol]

17. I was at BBQ over the weekend and a guy was telling the old story about the carburetor that runs on

2 tablespoons of water and gets 50 mpg. I suppressed a laugh (out of politeness) and went for more beer.

[ProfessorGAC]

18. What Detlef and Berryhill Said

Bullshit.

[MineralMan]

19. This Just In: Perpetual Motion Still Impossible

This story at that site is bogus. Looking at that site, it appears that much of what is there is also bogus.

[Codeine]

20. One wonders what the OP is doing there.

Perhaps they have an overwhelming interest in The Truth about Giant Humanoid Skeletons?

As Sid said above; sources matter.

[MineralMan]

21. Yes. Sources matter. They matter a lot.

The number of posts from woo sites like that one have dropped dramatically on DU, though. That's a good thing.

My suggestion to posters is to look at the ads hosted on sites and at the other stories the site features. Those are good clues, usually. Of course, some people will believe almost anything they find on the Internet. Not much to be done about that.

[cemaphonic]

24. Truth be told, I'm a bit interested in the Truth about Giant Humanoid Skeletons

I mean, I didn't know I was before, but I am now.

[ProudLib72]

33. Here, you read this and then give me the synopsis

https://www.gaia.com/lp/content/giant-skeletons-have-been-found-buried-in-mounds-across-america/

[Canoe52]

32. My grandfather was a machinist who tried his hand, at the turn of the century,

of making a perpetual motion machine. Would luv to have that now.

[hunter]

45. My grandfather was always thinking up ways to detect U.F.O.s

I'd like to have some of the machines he built too. He showed me a few lovely things with vacuum tubes and coils and spinning magnets, steam-punk before there was steam punk, but he'd disassembled them all by the time he came to live with my parents, after my grandma had passed and as his eyesight began to fail.

He was an engineer for the Apollo Project and had previously served as an officer in the Army Air Corp during World War II.

He never talked about his military service. A lot of it truly was SECRET. His security clearance was hard won since one of his brothers, long estranged, was a suspected communist and academic.

I'm sure my grandfather's homemade U.F.O. detecting follies served other purposes as well. For all we knew he was also looking for Nazis or Russians on the dark side of the moon.

My grandfather was definitely a lunatic, Sometime during the war he'd picked up a knack with exotic metals that was somehow essential to the U.S. space program and bits of his metal took men to the moon and safely back.

[JHB]

36. There is a non-BS way of doing this...

Interchangeable batteries. Don't charge the car (I.e., the batteries in the car), design the cars so that the batteries can be swapped out quickly and efficiently. After a few minutes to get a new battery pack, the car goes on it's way and the battery stays behind to recharge.

It would require a standardized battery mounting and interface, but I recall ther have already been some attempts at this. The swap is done by something akin to car wash machinery.

[robbob]

39. But...(and I ask this sincerely...)

What provides the electricity to charge the batteries? Coal? Nuclear? I mean, if there was a massive move to electric cars, where would that electricity come from?

[Adrahil]

48. Why not wind, solar and tidal? NT

[JHB]

56. And hydro, solar, wind, etc.

What (and I ask this sincerely) was your concern with what I said that prompted the question? A fear that it would create extra capacity which would result in more dirty (polluting) industries?

If that was it, I'm not sure why cleaner sources were discounted. Thus my puzzlement.

[robbob]

60. Yes, I am worried about how clean an electric car really is,

and if there was a sudden massive shift to electric cars where does that energy come from. I am not discounting cleaner sources (solar, wind, etc.) but I don’t think we are even close to generating the kind of electricity needed to power a country running electric cars.

[Adrahil]

49. This has to happen. Sort of a Blue Rhino like your propane tanks, but for batteries.

Not only would it make electric cars practical for all purposes, but the problem with expensive battery replacement goes away, as it is subsumed into small surcharges with each battery replacement.

[TheBlackAdder]

41. That what Tesla wants! That's why Elon Musk placed most of their patents in the Public Domain.

[Adrahil]

47. You know regenerative braking is a thing, right?

No energy conversion process is 100% efficient. Most aren't even close. The simple fact of the matter is you can't have a perpetual motion machine. Energy gets lost. You can use energy to move you AND suck it all up to keep your battery charged.

But you CAN recover energy when doing things like braking. When you break, the dynamos in the wheel are engaged to produce electricity which charges the battery.

[Turbineguy]

51. When I was living in Los Angeles in 1969

and commuting to work, I was amazed by the noise of the traffic around me. I thought if I were to festoon my car with microphones I could convert the noise to electricity and drive for free. Of course, gas then was 30 cents per gallon and my 4 cylinder car got 30 miles to the gallon....

[Hoyt]

52. In the 70s some people believed there was a carburetor patented

that could get over a 100 miles per gallon in a 4000 pond car with a V8. It was bull then.